PDA

View Full Version : Senate passes historic health care bill 60-39


Fire Haley
12-24-2009, 09:07 AM
WASHINGTON--At 7:15:59 a.m. eastern time on Thursday morning, on a 60-39 roll call and with Vice President Biden presiding, the Senate passed historic health care legislation in a rare Christmas Eve day session. The bill passed on party line votes; Democrats for, Republicans against.

The House earlier passed its version of the sweeping measure to cover the uninsured in the nation. Congress returns next month to negotiate a merged bill--which must return to both chambers for another vote.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/12/senate_passes_historic_health.html


Senate/House Side-by-Side Comparison of Major Health Care Reform Proposals

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

------------------------------

Now comes the Revolution.

Venom
12-24-2009, 09:14 AM
Liberals killing America

Fire Haley
12-24-2009, 09:22 AM
"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause." - - Padmé Amidala

GoSlash27
12-24-2009, 09:42 AM
"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause."

It was dead for quite some time. :noidea:
Merry Christmas, Everybody! We got you something we knew you'd hate!
-The Senate
P.S. No refunds, no exchanges!
XOXOXO

Fire Haley
12-24-2009, 10:01 AM
Welcome to the VA medical system. You're gonna love it.

SteelerEmpire
12-24-2009, 10:10 AM
Liberals killing America

Its more like a one-two punch....libs and conservatives both have their hands in the cookie jar....

fansince'76
12-24-2009, 10:13 AM
BOHICA. :moon:

MACH1
12-24-2009, 10:33 AM
http://www.almightywind.com/images/rip_america.jpg

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
12-24-2009, 10:56 AM
Welcome to the VA medical system. You're gonna love it.

or Medicare... and everyone who is on medicare loves it....oh wait.... thats government run too...
This is a huge step in the right direction. No reason the US is at the bottom in health care.

Fire Haley
12-24-2009, 11:17 AM
This is a huge step in the right direction. No reason the US is at the bottom in health care.

Bottom?

BWAhahaha - I've seen socialized medicine in action all over the world - it sucks.
Goodbye medical research, the best doctors and say hello to millions of immigrants getting "free" heath care while you pay through the nose for it.

Here's a tip - buy insurance stock. They will make out like bandits.

fansince'76
12-24-2009, 11:21 AM
Bottom?

BWAhahaha - I've seen socialized medicine in action all over the world - it sucks.
Goodbye medical research, the best doctors and say hello to millions of illegal immigrants getting "free" heath care while you pay through the nose for it.

Here's a tip - buy insurance stock. They will make out like bandits.

Fixed. And quality of care is going to suffer across the board too.

Fire Haley
12-24-2009, 11:28 AM
And quality of care is going to suffer across the board too.

Not for those congresscritters signing the Bill. Why should they care?

They are exempt from the "commoners" and have their own free health care for life, paid for by Mr Taxpayer.


There is no "public option" for the mass of peasants though - you will pay through the nose to private insurance companies
Taxes will go up up up along with your insurance rates (while the "benefits" won't even kick in until 2014)

MACH1
12-24-2009, 11:40 AM
or Medicare... and everyone who is on medicare loves it....oh wait.... thats government run too...
This is a huge step in the right direction. No reason the US is at the bottom in health care.

And good luck with finding a Dr. that accepts Medicare. I think they get paid $65 for a visit now, it will be cut to $35 a visit. Tell me one Dr. thats going to see someone for that.
it's hard enough for people on Medicare to find a Dr. as it is.

GoSlash27
12-24-2009, 11:51 AM
It's like solving homelessness with a law that says everyone must buy a house.
Very apt analogy! :D

Vincent
12-24-2009, 11:58 AM
Why, with the Chicago mafia (North American outsource partner of the Russian mafia) running the country, does this surprise anybody?

GBMelBlount
12-24-2009, 12:02 PM
This IS the death blow to America as we know it.

I would imagine most liberals who voted for Obama are happy now.

Seriously, Tony, this IS one of the reasons you voted for Obama, right?

Fire Haley
12-24-2009, 12:04 PM
I don't even bother weighing on this sh*t anymore.

It's not going to be pretty


Senate Health Care Bill Would Force Some Middle Class Families to Pay $15,200 Yearly Insurance Fee, According to CBO Analysis

(CNSNews.com) - Forget the public option. Even without it, the health care bill presented in the Senate by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) would make some middle-class American families pay what amounts to a $15,200 annual federally-mandated insurance fee, according to facts revealed in analyses published by the Congressional Budget Office.

MACH1
12-24-2009, 12:20 PM
Have a seat America, this is going to be painful.

http://photos.innersource.com/photo/1854/l/Judas-Cradle.jpg

SteelCityMom
12-24-2009, 01:01 PM
This IS the death blow to America as we know it.

I would imagine most liberals who voted for Obama are happy now.

Seriously, Tony, this IS one of the reasons you voted for Obama, right?


Pffft...the death blow to America came a long time ago, ironically in another rare Christmas Eve session, when the government decided to hand over the nation to private bankers.

This is just another stepping stone towards further ensuring that Americans are dependent on their government, not the other way around. I highly doubt this will be the straw that breaks the camels back for most Americans either (though I wish it was). Most people won't realize what they've lost until it's far too late.

Vincent
12-24-2009, 01:02 PM
Have a seat America, this is going to be painful.

Nice image Mach. Thanks!!

I fully expect the donkeys to do the @#$% they do when they "govern" unopposed. They have been trying to do this to us and the medical industry for over a century. So they finally get an electorate so bone stupid that they elect a :blah::blah::blah: We all know what he is. And they present us with this bull@#$% "crisis" of 47M "uninsured" (both sides now say its 30M) that they use to mandate that everybody must buy insurance (regardless of cost), and we're still left with 30M "uninsured". And consistent with donkey "legislation", the costs begin immediately while the "benefits" don't start to "kick in" until 2013 - the so called (I love this) "out years". This is so egregious that none less than the Daley machine has issued warning that its time to start feigning a more "centrist" look for da peeps. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/23/AR2009122302439_pf.html

Again, I fully expect marxist bastards to be marxist bastards. What is starting to piss me off is the talk coming from the elephants that "Oh, well, once this 'legislation' passes, well, you know how hard it is to reverse anything, and well, much of it can't ever be reversed".

Anybody that has followed American politics even a little knows the donkeys are toast in 2010, and teleprompter jockey is gone in 2012. The electorate is that seriously pissed. The elephants had better pull their collective heads out of their asses and reverse all the damage these marxist bastards have done or they're going to have a meltdown to deal with.

Or maybe that's the whole idea.

Most people won't realize what they've lost until it's far too late.

http://www.7gen.com/files/blog20220boiling_frog.jpg

KeiselPower99
12-24-2009, 01:41 PM
Welcome comrades to the United Socialist States of America!!!!

http://www.comboutique.com/shop/products/inprint_small/USR1089/20050705205500_che-guevara-soviet-union-flag-posterflag-4001883.jpg

X-Terminator
12-24-2009, 02:00 PM
or Medicare... and everyone who is on medicare loves it....oh wait.... thats government run too...
This is a huge step in the right direction. No reason the US is at the bottom in health care.

Biggest misconception ever.

The U.S. has by far and away the best medical care in the world. That has never been in dispute even by our harshest critics. Whether it's the number of available doctors, specialists, technological advancement, treatment options, you name it...America is #1 by a wide margin. People come HERE to have certain delicate medical procedures done - they don't go to Canada or the UK or France. The problem is and has always been availability and affordability of health insurance. And I'm sorry, but you are unbelievably naive if you really think the government getting involved in health care is going to make it both better and cheaper. It will do the exact opposite, you can take that to the bank.

I also find it ironic that the Democrats are planning to cut Medicare, when many of these same people excoriated the Republicans for wanting to do the same thing back during the budget battles of the 90s (even though they really weren't). But apparently that's A-OK with you, what with this being a shining example of hypocrisy if I ever saw one.

This country needed health reform, no question about it. Even Republicans agree with that. But this is the total wrong way to go about it. What they should have done is lifted the ban on selling health insurance across state lines, creating competition which would drive prices down. You can buy auto, life, renter's and homeowner's insurance from any company in the U.S., regardless of the state they call home. Why not try that with health insurance? Nah, that would allow people too much freedom, and we can't have that.

MACH1
12-24-2009, 02:08 PM
Freedom comes with a cost. And if you can't afford it they will fine $750 for it.

SteelerEmpire
12-24-2009, 02:15 PM
This IS the death blow to America as we know it.

I would imagine most liberals who voted for Obama are happy now.

Seriously, Tony, this IS one of the reasons you voted for Obama, right?

Its all political.... no one "really " knows if this health reform will hurt or help America. First, its 1000's of pages long so its difficult to "truely " analyze. Second, the Dems say it will help, the Repubs say it will hurt.... " somebodies " not right... (or it won't help as much as the Dems say, or won't hurt as much as the Repubs say ). Truthfully, it all sounds like political angling form both sides (to hell with the truth, lets just win more seats / keep our jobs... and let the American people suffer ).
In addition. There are "so" many variables surrounding the future that the final result of this reform could go either way.

Anyone who says that it will be either good or bad for the country... without reading the entire bill and doing the resultant calculations of its benefits... is guilty of blindly following their respective parties lines... i.e., just listening to what your parties stance is, and then simply repeating that stance and adopting it as your own opinion... don't just take your respective senators, congressman or political parties word for it ... :mad:
They ALL first look after themselves.... and THEN look after us... Usually they only look after themselves...

Dino 6 Rings
12-24-2009, 02:20 PM
Nov 2010 cant get here soon enough. that is all.

Preacher
12-24-2009, 02:55 PM
We ain't even close to the end of this battle yet.

Once the bills get combined into one,

it goes back to the house and senate. They THEN have to vote on that final bill..and THAT is going to be one ugly battle.

Bng_Hevn
12-24-2009, 05:50 PM
Its all political.... no one "really " knows if this health reform will hurt or help America. First, its 1000's of pages long so its difficult to "truely " analyze. Second, the Dems say it will help, the Repubs say it will hurt.... " somebodies " not right... (or it won't help as much as the Dems say, or won't hurt as much as the Repubs say ). Truthfully, it all sounds like political angling form both sides (to hell with the truth, lets just win more seats / keep our jobs... and let the American people suffer ).
In addition. There are "so" many variables surrounding the future that the final result of this reform could go either way.

Anyone who says that it will be either good or bad for the country... without reading the entire bill and doing the resultant calculations of its benefits... is guilty of blindly following their respective parties lines... i.e., just listening to what your parties stance is, and then simply repeating that stance and adopting it as your own opinion... don't just take your respective senators, congressman or political parties word for it ... :mad:
They ALL first look after themselves.... and THEN look after us... Usually they only look after themselves...

How is it political ignorance to say that taxes are going to skyrocket? Income tax, tax on soda and everything else they can think of.

Do you not agree that taxes will increase to pay for this mess? I was just a tyke during Carter's reign of terror, but from all accounts I've heard from people who worked during that time, Carter nearly ruined this country via taxes.

Obama, IMO, will top Carter in every fashion. Only saving grace is that we know it can be fixed, IF we're lucky enough to get a Reagan-esque president to clean up this mess.

TroysBadDawg
12-24-2009, 08:11 PM
Anyone who says that it will be either good or bad for the country... without reading the entire bill and doing the resultant calculations of its benefits... is guilty of blindly following their respective parties lines... i.e., just listening to what your parties stance is, and then simply repeating that stance and adopting it as your own opinion... don't just take your respective senators, congressman or political parties word for it ... :mad:
They ALL first look after themselves.... and THEN look after us... Usually they only look after themselves...

Oh come on now even the Senators have said they haven't read the bill, who has? HAve you or anybody except those behind the closed doors of the transparrent government we were supposed to get. I am sorry but bricks and mortor are not transparent to me or anyone else with the exception of superman, then again they could be lead lined.

Although I blame both sides of the isle for this one, the dems for doing it to us and for the Republicans for not bringing it to a head just letting it fester. They have not even tried to challenge to questionablility of Obama therefore the integrity of the Democratic party saying he was quilfied to run for President when by what is appearing in the news and courts, he is not. Yet the Dems Read and Polosi signed off he met all qualifications to run and be President of the United States. We are nol;onger a two PArty system we are a one party system with out chacks and balances, The liberals (Democrats) stacked the Supreme Court (Judicial), they have control of both the (Executive) office and the Legislative branch, thus no checks and balance. Now tell me how checks and balance was suppose to work....


They wanted change and we are getting it, right comrade. Nikita Khrushchev said that they will raise the communist flag over the United states with out ever firing a shot, you young one don't remember that but I do. Looks like it is happening now.

MACH1
12-24-2009, 09:14 PM
Oh come on now even the Senators have said they haven't read the bill, who has? HAve you or anybody except those behind the closed doors of the transparrent government we were supposed to get. I am sorry but bricks and mortor are not transparent to me or anyone else with the exception of superman, then again they could be lead lined.

Although I blame both sides of the isle for this one, the dems for doing it to us and for the Republicans for not bringing it to a head just letting it fester. They have not even tried to challenge to questionablility of Obama therefore the integrity of the Democratic party saying he was quilfied to run for President when by what is appearing in the news and courts, he is not. Yet the Dems Read and Polosi signed off he met all qualifications to run and be President of the United States. We are nol;onger a two PArty system we are a one party system with out chacks and balances, The liberals (Democrats) stacked the Supreme Court (Judicial), they have control of both the (Executive) office and the Legislative branch, thus no checks and balance. Now tell me how checks and balance was suppose to work....

They wanted change and we are getting it, right comrade. Nikita Khrushchev said that they will raise the communist flag over the United states with out ever firing a shot, you young one don't remember that but I do. Looks like it is happening now.


No...But they've also said the American public doesn't care how much they spend or that the public will forget about it in a few weeks. :doh:

And your right about raising the commy flag.

steelwalls
12-24-2009, 11:22 PM
Welcome to the VA medical system. You're gonna love it.


Bam!!!! I don't even have to read anymore.

VegasStlrFan
12-24-2009, 11:56 PM
Amazing what happens when the masses are lulled into complacency. I hope this isn't the beginning of the end!

SteelerEmpire
12-25-2009, 12:18 AM
How is it political ignorance to say that taxes are going to skyrocket? Income tax, tax on soda and everything else they can think of.

Do you not agree that taxes will increase to pay for this mess? I was just a tyke during Carter's reign of terror, but from all accounts I've heard from people who worked during that time, Carter nearly ruined this country via taxes.

Obama, IMO, will top Carter in every fashion. Only saving grace is that we know it can be fixed, IF we're lucky enough to get a Reagan-esque president to clean up this mess.

You forgot to mention the enormous debt that Reagan ran up through military spending... and Both Bushes that did a job on the country by the end of their tenures...

SteelerEmpire
12-25-2009, 12:20 AM
Oh come on now even the Senators have said they haven't read the bill, who has? HAve you or anybody except those behind the closed doors of the transparrent government we were supposed to get. I am sorry but bricks and mortor are not transparent to me or anyone else with the exception of superman, then again they could be lead lined.

Although I blame both sides of the isle for this one, the dems for doing it to us and for the Republicans for not bringing it to a head just letting it fester. They have not even tried to challenge to questionablility of Obama therefore the integrity of the Democratic party saying he was quilfied to run for President when by what is appearing in the news and courts, he is not. Yet the Dems Read and Polosi signed off he met all qualifications to run and be President of the United States. We are nol;onger a two PArty system we are a one party system with out chacks and balances, The liberals (Democrats) stacked the Supreme Court (Judicial), they have control of both the (Executive) office and the Legislative branch, thus no checks and balance. Now tell me how checks and balance was suppose to work....


They wanted change and we are getting it, right comrade. Nikita Khrushchev said that they will raise the communist flag over the United states with out ever firing a shot, you young one don't remember that but I do. Looks like it is happening now.

Ok... give Obama at least 1 yr in office "before" we say he's not qualified....

MACH1
12-25-2009, 01:55 AM
You forgot to mention the enormous debt that Reagan ran up through military spending... and Both Bushes that did a job on the country by the end of their tenures...

Ignorance is bliss.

Ok... give Obama at least 1 yr in office "before" we say he's not qualified....

Close enough. He is no where even close to being qualified. Community organizer in chief.

Preacher
12-25-2009, 02:57 AM
All I gotta say is. . .

Thank GOODNESS the bill have to now go through committee and then come back through the house and senate.

Still a great chance it will fail.

Let's hope so.

HometownGal
12-25-2009, 06:21 AM
Welcome to the world of socialized medicine America.

The only way to strike back is to vote every single one of these meatheads out of office when the time comes, including the Meathead-in-Chief.

Texasteel
12-25-2009, 06:54 AM
Call, write and e-mail these clowns. They don't give a damn about you or me. They do however care about votes, and staying in their little social club.

Godfather
12-25-2009, 08:05 AM
Welcome to the world of socialized medicine America.

The only way to strike back is to vote every single one of these meatheads out of office when the time comes, including the Meathead-in-Chief.

I'm just glad the Senate bill (which is easily the worse version) was a party line vote. Makes it easy in the future...if you were a D Senator in 2009 I will never vote for you for any office in the future.

I'll have to look it up if you were a Blue Dog House member.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
12-25-2009, 08:44 AM
Nov 2010 cant get here soon enough. that is all.

Yes! 4 more years!!!
or did you want to Drill baby Drill!
lol.... hopefully he runs agains Palin
Its unbelieveable that americans would not want health care for everyone.
Your paying for it either way.. through pay deduction or through tax. Only now your not paying for individual going to hospital that do not have health insurance and need medical attention. everyone can be covered.

Hopefully you all change you mind once eveything takes place........ and im not the one changing my mind on this issue. only time will tell, but for me its nice to see somehting being done.

GBMelBlount
12-25-2009, 09:02 AM
BIGBENFASTWILLIE

or did you want to Drill baby Drill!

Brilliant!

Of course I don't want to drill. It's much better to have everyone else drill and pay double for everything! this will help raise the standards of the rest of the world with only slight devastation to our economy!

...and while we're at it, let's double the gas tax to $1.00 per gallon for more social programs. Yippee!

BIGBENFASTWILLIE

Its unbelieveable that americans would not want health care for everyone.

It's unbelievable that you are a complete idiot. :chuckle:

j/k BIGBENFASTWILLIE. My 9 year daughter completely agrees with you!........ :applaudit:

I can't 't think of a single thing the government hasn't taken from the clutches of free markets and competition and made better through social engineering by selfless bureaucrats! :rofl:

4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years! Yay!

Merry Christmas, friend. :drink:

TroysBadDawg
12-25-2009, 10:58 AM
Ok... give Obama at least 1 yr in office "before" we say he's not qualified....

He hasn't proved Natural born citizen but has paid over 1.4 million to lawyers to keep all his records under wraps so we can not see. I guess that is also transparency to you.

And what is this now about him and hid many social security numbers?

http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=3255

Is this just the tip of the iceburg? And why haven't the Republicans sais anything about it? I think they al know and are into it with him. Besides they all get full benefits after serving just one term. I would like that kind of golden parachute.

Godfather
12-25-2009, 01:31 PM
[QUOTE=BIGBENFASTWILLIE;740094]Its unbelieveable that americans would not want health care for everyone.QUOTE]

Obamacare will not provide health care for everyone. Not even close.

Even its supporters admit 18 million people will be left uninsured and independent economists have estimated that as many as 24 million will end up without insurance.

Even worse, if you work for a company with more than 200 employees you won't be allowed to opt out of the group plan at work. Doesn't matter if your insurer raises premiums to the point where you can get a better deal buying your own. Doesn't matter if they stiff you on a claim and you want to fire them...tough luck, you have to bend over and keep paying them. And your right to sue them is limited too because it's an employee benefit.

The Senate bill doesn't benefit anyone except Big Insurance, by giving them a captive consumer base and no accountability. It looks like the disastrous Masscare plan that is already on the verge of collapse.

X-Terminator
12-25-2009, 01:44 PM
Yes! 4 more years!!!
or did you want to Drill baby Drill!
lol.... hopefully he runs agains Palin
Its unbelieveable that americans would not want health care for everyone.
Your paying for it either way.. through pay deduction or through tax. Only now your not paying for individual going to hospital that do not have health insurance and need medical attention. everyone can be covered.

Hopefully you all change you mind once eveything takes place........ and im not the one changing my mind on this issue. only time will tell, but for me its nice to see somehting being done.

If you can point out to me where it says in either version of the bill that says that it covers everyone, please do so. Because even your precious D's have said there will still be millions of people left uninsured. Even when they had the public option as part of the bill, they said that not everyone will be covered. But I bet you will not say one word about that, because it's YOUR guys doing it.

And you still have this misconception that Americans do not want everyone to have health insurance. Find me one person who opposes this terrible bill who has said they do not want everyone in America to have health insurance. I have a feeling I'll be waiting for a long time.

What you don't seem to understand is that nobody has said they don't want health care for all. What opponents have said is that they do not want GOVERNMENT to be the arbiter of health insurance. We're talking about people whose job it is to waste billions of dollars a year and then raise your taxes to pay for it. And you want these people running our health care system???? Let the insurance companies sell their policies nationwide without restriction, and I am willing to bet that there will ultimately be many more people with health insurance than there are now or that will be under the D's bill, because it will be much cheaper to buy it.

MACH1
12-25-2009, 08:45 PM
Yes! 4 more years!!!
or did you want to Drill baby Drill!
lol.... hopefully he runs agains Palin
Its unbelieveable that americans would not want health care for everyone.
Your paying for it either way.. through pay deduction or through tax. Only now your not paying for individual going to hospital that do not have health insurance and need medical attention. everyone can be covered.

Hopefully you all change you mind once eveything takes place........ and im not the one changing my mind on this issue. only time will tell, but for me its nice to see somehting being done.

Drill away.

Tell me where in the Constitution where it's legal to take away freedom of choice? Tell me where in the Constitution that it's legal to mandate the public to purchase anything at all from a private source, or government source for that matter? And if you don't you get fined and/or tossed in jail.

HometownGal
12-25-2009, 09:06 PM
:yawn: :yawn:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_3MKgD6z-YJk/R9Bi_3_W_7I/AAAAAAAAAh8/KO7eRX0Q53Y/s400/BarackKoolAid.jpg

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
12-25-2009, 09:40 PM
Brilliant!


j/k BIGBENFASTWILLIE. My 9 year daughter completely agrees with you!........ :applaudit:



Merry Christmas, friend. :drink:

Great comment by the way!! :hatsoff:

The only thing that I would like to have seen was the public option. Insurance companies really have no reason to become more competitive with pricing.
However, Overall i think it is a good thing. A step in the right direction.

And lets face it. We really dont have a clue how it will be. And unless you have time to read everything the bill says it is pointless to argue in detail.

I feel it is a step in the right direction simply because I believe that the current healtcare is far below standards and I was for universal healthcare all alone...
Only time will tell...

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
12-25-2009, 09:44 PM
If you can point out to me where it says in either version of the bill that says that it covers everyone, please do so. Because even your precious D's have said there will still be millions of people left uninsured. Even when they had the public option as part of the bill, they said that not everyone will be covered. But I bet you will not say one word about that, because it's YOUR guys doing it.

And you still have this misconception that Americans do not want everyone to have health insurance. Find me one person who opposes this terrible bill who has said they do not want everyone in America to have health insurance. I have a feeling I'll be waiting for a long time.

What you don't seem to understand is that nobody has said they don't want health care for all. What opponents have said is that they do not want GOVERNMENT to be the arbiter of health insurance. We're talking about people whose job it is to waste billions of dollars a year and then raise your taxes to pay for it. And you want these people running our health care system???? Let the insurance companies sell their policies nationwide without restriction, and I am willing to bet that there will ultimately be many more people with health insurance than there are now or that will be under the D's bill, because it will be much cheaper to buy it.

In short its YOUR guys that are preventing everyone from being covered. If the republicans were only for the average,,,,middle class individual and not the wealthy we might have gotten more accomplised with this bill....

GBMelBlount
12-25-2009, 09:57 PM
And lets face it. We really dont have a clue how it will be. And unless you have time to read everything the bill says it is pointless to argue in detail.

I feel it is a step in the right direction............


Despite all evidence to the contrary, as you said, it's quite apparent that you have "no clue how it will be."

Spoken like a true public educator on the taxpayers dime. :wink02:

Thank you Bigwillie, I only need to read a few of your posts per year to justify keeping our daughter in a private christian school. :chuckle:

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
12-25-2009, 10:12 PM
Despite all evidence to the contrary, as you said, it's quite apparent that you have "no clue how it will be."

Spoken like a true public educator on the taxpayers dime. :wink02:

Thank you Bigwillie, I only need to read a few of your posts per year to justify keeping our daughter in a private christian school. :chuckle:

Well thats nice, but really no one knows exactly how much its going to cost (as tax payers) and how it will work out in the long run . I guess you might? Being brought up in a Christian school yourself?

X-Terminator
12-25-2009, 10:26 PM
In short its YOUR guys that are preventing everyone from being covered. If the republicans were only for the average,,,,middle class individual and not the wealthy we might have gotten more accomplised with this bill....

Wanting the government out of the health insurance business other than making sure everything is on the up and up is "being for the wealthy?" That's news to me. :noidea: Oh and BTW, there are a LOT more people than just Republicans who are against this bill...unless nearly 60% of the people are Republicans, which we both know is not the case.

What is so wrong with allowing people to purchase their own lower-cost health insurance with their own money? What is so wrong with taking the shackles off the health insurance companies and allowing them to sell policies anywhere in the U.S.? Why MUST it be forced upon them by the government? I'm sorry, but I'd like to know that when I do have insurance, that I will, much more often than not, get the very best care available. That will NOT happen with a bunch of bean counters in Washington making those decisions. I mean, for crying out loud...there's a 2-year waiting period for a person to even get ON Medicare if they apply for SS and have lost their health benefits from their job. Now suppose someone has a serious and life-threatening medical problem. What the hell are they supposed to do? Run up thousands of dollars in doctor's bills that they can't pay? That right there is absolutely ridiculous...and this is a GOVERNMENT-RUN program doing this. And you want MORE of that???

And the Republicans aren't "my guys." I'm not one, have never been one and never will be one. Being for smaller, more fiscally responsible government should be something that everyone should want, not just be limited to what letter is next to your name. And this bill does neither of those. It's too overarching, it does nothing but grease the palms of the insurance companies, it costs way, way too much money and it WILL lead to rationing of care when the people in government realizes they need to cut costs.

GBMelBlount
12-25-2009, 10:37 PM
Well thats nice, but really no one knows exactly how much its going to cost (as tax payers) and how it will work out in the long run . I guess you might? Being brought up in a Christian school yourself?

Nope, although my parents were very devout Christians, they really couldn't justify / afford sending us to private schools. Besides, when I went to school in the 60's and 70's, the public education system was much better in every measurable way.

Unfortunately, with most public school teachers today being extremely liberal like yourself, and how poor the public education is, we really don't feel we have any choice but to pay to send our daughter to a private school in addition to paying thousands per year in public school taxes.

X-Terminator
12-25-2009, 10:41 PM
Great comment by the way!! :hatsoff:

The only thing that I would like to have seen was the public option. Insurance companies really have no reason to become more competitive with pricing.
However, Overall i think it is a good thing. A step in the right direction.

And lets face it. We really dont have a clue how it will be. And unless you have time to read everything the bill says it is pointless to argue in detail.

I feel it is a step in the right direction simply because I believe that the current healtcare is far below standards and I was for universal healthcare all alone...
Only time will tell...

Insurance companies have no reason to become more competitive with pricing because they are competing with themselves! I don't know why you aren't getting this. As it stands right now, if I wanted to buy a policy from a company in Mississippi that is far cheaper than it is here in PA, I am prohibited from doing so. The insurance companies know this and price accordingly. If I was allowed to do that, then the insurance companies here would either have to lower their prices or go out of business.

Come on, the "public option" wasn't really an option. Their ultimate goal was to force everyone to get on the public dole whether they wanted to or not. Sorry, but no. I can't and won't get on board with that.

And again, I think you are confusing "health care" with "health insurance." Our health care is the finest in the world, as I've already mentioned. Health insurance is another thing entirely. It IS a problem, and I've yet to hear anyone say that it isn't. Allowing the government to be the sole provider of health insurance is NOT the way to go.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
12-25-2009, 10:46 PM
Really? so in 200+ years, what exactly has the government taken control of from the private sector and lowered costs or run better than the free markets and capitalism?

Owned.

Bye bye. :wave:

Now go prey on innocent, naive, and impressionable children with your liberal educational drivel. :thumbsup:

Turn off Rush Limbaugh and think for yourself for awhile.......

So if your Christian education is so great then let me know why many of the teachers do not have a degree in elementary education and the school. (charging an arm and a leg) pay these teachers considerably lower that teacher is public schools. You would think that if it was such a great education they would be competitive salary wise so they get the best teachers in the classroom to teach you children,
However, i understand that as a Christian it is easier for you to say "go prey on innocent, naive, and impressionable children with your liberal educational drivel"

I always think its funny how the ones who claim to be so Christian are always the ones to jump out and be negative towards another individual and or their beliefs. Great Christian Morals there:hatsoff:

OWNED! :rofl:

GBMelBlount
12-25-2009, 10:54 PM
So if your Christian education is so great then let me know why many of the teachers do not have a degree in elementary education and the school.

So a degree is more important than the fact that my daughters classmates, on average, score TWO GRADES HIGHER than the children you teach with your degree?

LOL!

You have just been schooled.... teacher. :rofl:

Bye Bye. :chuckle:

X-Terminator
12-25-2009, 10:58 PM
Nope, although my parents were very devout Christians, they really couldn't justify / afford sending us to private schools. Besides, when I went to school in the 60's and 70's, the public education system was much better in every measurable way.

Unfortunately, with most public school teachers today being extremely liberal like yourself, and how poor the public education is, we really don't feel we have any choice but to pay to send our daughter to a private school in addition to paying thousands per year in public school taxes.

That is NOT true in every instance. There are plenty of teachers in public schools who are very good at what they do. The problem with public education is there simply aren't enough good teachers out there, as well as administrators who have little or nothing to do with the actual education of the children in their school district, only caring about the bottom line. Having parents who don't give a shit about their kids' education and use it only as a daycare center doesn't help matters either. It takes two to tango. I also do not agree that teachers should be using kids as a sounding board for their political beliefs either, be they liberal or conservative - and don't think for one second that it's only liberals who do this. Their job is to educate, not indoctrinate.

GBMelBlount
12-25-2009, 10:59 PM
That is why I said "MOST" XT. Not ALL.

Of course I agree with what you are saying.

X-Terminator
12-25-2009, 11:04 PM
That is why I said MOST XT.

Be that as it may, that still doesn't mean that they all try to force their beliefs on the children they teach. They don't. The good ones know how to separate them. The bad ones don't, and and they are the ones who should end up in the unemployment line. I don't have kids, but if I did, I sure as hell would not want to pay for them to go to school and learn about anything other than what they need to be successful.

EDIT: Just saw your edit...so we do have an understanding here...

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
12-25-2009, 11:05 PM
That is why I said "MOST" XT.

So, I guess you believe that my day teaching 3rd graders consist of teaching conservative views? Or anything on politics? No, there is a little thing called a State Curriculum. I along with every other teacher, teach strictly inline with the state curriculum. Wow.... Y do you judge people like this before you know? Go spend a day in the public school. Just volunteer ONE day to spend in the classroom.

Are you also suggesting that any conservative teacher is a BAD teacher?

GBMelBlount
12-25-2009, 11:10 PM
I always think its funny how the ones who claim to be so Christian are always the ones to jump out and be negative towards another individual and or their beliefs. Great Christian Morals there:hatsoff:

OWNED! :rofl:

Really?

I have just embarrassed and humiliated you because you can't show one thing the government has done better than the private sector in 200+ years so you turn it into an anti-Christian attack on Christmas night? Classy.

Fact is, I just owned you you pal. You can't answer the question and yet you think the government will improve healthcare.

I apologize for schooling you like this..."degreed" teacher. :rofl:

GBMelBlount
12-25-2009, 11:14 PM
So, I guess you believe that my day teaching 3rd graders consist of teaching conservative views? Or anything on politics?


Doesn't matter, fact is the public school systems are going down the tubes and most of the teachers are liberals like you.

Can you explain another reason why so many kids come out of public schools taught by degreed teachers like you and are not able to read or write and their test scores are so much lower than when I was a kid?


...or why they are so much lower than children in Christian schools where you complained the teachers don't even have high-falootin degrees like you?

X-Terminator
12-25-2009, 11:16 PM
We've gotten away from the topic, but I just want to say that I will always defend teachers no matter where they teach or what they personally believe. They have the most important job in this country - educating our kids. Even though I'm not involved in education nor have any kids in the system, I do know a few teachers and the job they have to do these days with everything they have to deal with.

So BBFW...we may not always agree on everything, but I respect the hell out of what you do. :drink:

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
12-25-2009, 11:18 PM
Really?

I have just embarrassed and humiliated you because you can't show one thing the government has done better than the private sector in 200+ years so you turn it into an anti-Christian attack on Christmas night? Classy.

Fact is, I just owned you you pal. You can't answer the question and yet you think the government will improve healthcare.

I apologize for schooling you like this..."degreed" teacher. :rofl:

Sorry Mr. GBMelBlout..... I unknowingly accused you of not thinking for yourself and using Limbaugh tactics... When in fact it was Hannity that you derived you argument from instead of thinking on your own.
Heres the link but I'm sure you already have it on your favorites:

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=65538851

Now, when you want to think for yourself we can continue this conversation.

OWNED!
you sure your not a browns fan?

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
12-25-2009, 11:23 PM
Doesn't matter, fact is the public school systems are going down the tubes and most of the teachers are liberals like you.

Can you explain another reason why so many kids come out of public schools taught by degreed teachers like you and are not able to read or write and their test scores are so much lower than when I was a kid?


...or why they are so much lower than children in Christian schools where you complained the teachers don't even have high-falootin degrees like you?

However, to play Hannitys Game.
My answer would be:

Fought Wars
Interstate Highway System
Postal Service
OH THIS Was 3 things:applaudit:

X-Terminator
12-25-2009, 11:24 PM
Back on topic...if there is one thing I do like being addressed is the insurance companies denying people affordable coverage because they have a pre-existing condition. I ranted on this a while back when I tried to get a policy for my Mom and just about every company we tried said they would not cover her because she has ESRD, and the one that would wanted to charge her almost $350 per month. However, they will cover cancer patients, heart patients, etc, which to me makes absolutely no sense. That is something that needed to be fixed for sure.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
12-25-2009, 11:27 PM
Back on topic...if there is one thing I do like being addressed is the insurance companies denying people affordable coverage because they have a pre-existing condition. I ranted on this a while back when I tried to get a policy for my Mom and just about every company we tried said they would not cover her because she has ESRD, and the one that would wanted to charge her almost $350 per month. However, they will cover cancer patients, heart patients, etc, which to me makes absolutely no sense. That is something that needed to be fixed for sure.

and it will be fixed with this bill.. Or so they claim! Again, I can not talk on this matter with 100% certainty because I can admit I don't know. (Haven't watched Hannity lately.. and Limbaugh hasnt told me). Much is said, but in reality the general public just does not know that much right now

GBMelBlount
12-25-2009, 11:31 PM
Sorry Mr. GBMelBlout..... I unknowingly accused you of not thinking for yourself and using Limbaugh tactics... When in fact it was Hannity that you derived you argument from instead of thinking on your own.
Heres the link but I'm sure you already have it on your favorites:

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=65538851

Now, when you want to think for yourself we can continue this conversation.

OWNED!
you sure your not a browns fan?


You lost the argument so your comeback is it is invalid because it is similar to Hannity's beliefs?

You couldn't answer my simple question which allowed you 200+ years of U.S. (or any other countries) history to justify your assertion and this is your response...

that this is Hannity's idea, not mine?

How embarrassing. :rofl:

Owned. :wave:

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
12-25-2009, 11:33 PM
You lost the argument so your comeback is it is invalid because it is similar to Hannity's beliefs?

You couldn't answer my simple question which allowed your 200+ years of U.S. )or any other countries) history to justify your assertion and this is your response?

This is Hannity's idea, not mine?

How embarrassing. :rofl:

Owned. :wave:
I dont think its invalid... Its right here... Gave you a link...

Your belief is not similar to Hannitys,,,,,,,His beliefs are yours and this proved that you are not thinking for yourself.... I gave you 3 examples.... Run them by Hannity and get back to me

X-Terminator
12-25-2009, 11:33 PM
and it will be fixed with this bill.. Or so they claim! Again, I can not talk on this matter with 100% certainty because I can admit I don't know. (Haven't watched Hannity lately.. and Limbaugh hasnt told me). Much is said, but in reality the general public just does not know that much right now

OK, I will give you that we don't know everything that is in the bill. But I don't like a lot of what IS known about it, some of them very important to me, and for those reasons, I cannot support it. I also don't like that they had to bribe people in order to get their votes or that those who WERE bought off didn't stick to their principles.

They can come up with something better than this, but they need to sit down, take the time to think it through rather than ramrod it through government. It's too important for that.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
12-25-2009, 11:37 PM
OK, I will give you that we don't know everything that is in the bill. But I don't like a lot of what IS known about it, some of them very important to me, and for those reasons, I cannot support it. I also don't like that they had to bribe people in order to get their votes or that those who WERE bought off didn't stick to their principles.

They can come up with something better than this, but they need to sit down, take the time to think it through rather than ramrod it through government. It's too important for that.

They need to take the politics out of if and do what is best for Americans. I personally believe that is offering all Americans affordable health insurance. Insured everyday, for any reason.

GBMelBlount
12-25-2009, 11:38 PM
However, to play Hannitys Game.
My answer would be:

Fought Wars
Interstate Highway System
Postal Service
OH THIS Was 3 things:applaudit:

I asked for of examples of things that were taken over by the government, that were originally provided by the free market and the private sector and then the government took control and provided a better service and price than the private sector had?

Because that was what I asked you and that is what is relevant here.

X-Terminator
12-25-2009, 11:41 PM
However, to play Hannitys Game.
My answer would be:

Fought Wars
Interstate Highway System
Postal Service
OH THIS Was 3 things:applaudit:

I'd add the space program to that as well...except for the space shuttle that is finally about to be replaced, anyway. Interstate Highway System...yes, no question. War is pretty much a given. The Postal Service...well, that's not really a good example. UPS, FedEx, DHL all do a better job when it comes to delivering packages and important letters, and things like online bill pay and email make it unnecessary to use their regular mail service in most instances. So the Postal Service is getting pretty close to being rendered obsolete because of the private sector.

X-Terminator
12-25-2009, 11:42 PM
They need to take the politics out of if and do what is best for Americans. I personally believe that is offering all Americans affordable health insurance. Insured everyday, for any reason.

Agreed.

Look, through all of that arguing, we found common ground. It IS possible after all! :thumbsup:

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
12-25-2009, 11:42 PM
So you are honestly trying to tell me that these are three examples of things that were taken over by the government, that were originally provided by the free market and the private sector and then the government took control and provided a better service and price than the private sector had?

Because that was what I asked you and that is what is relevant here.

I gave you what you (Hannity) asked for.
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=65538851

Face it: You got schooled by a public school teacher..... How does it feel? :wave:

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
12-25-2009, 11:56 PM
Agreed.

Look, through all of that arguing, we found common ground. It IS possible after all! :thumbsup:

yes we did....yes we can... Sorry had to do that.....
The common ground is found... Think we can take this to congress?

GBMelBlount
12-25-2009, 11:58 PM
I gave you what you (Hannity) asked for.
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=65538851

Face it: You got schooled by a public school teacher..... How does it feel? :wave:

You gave me a link to a forum thread? LOL!!!!! that's some schooling alright! :rofl:

Our highway and U.S. Postal Service costs are VERY high and the quality is lower on average than the private sector because they have little or no competition. Very poor examples.

Also, I can't question the importance of our military but again, I don't think this is an example of something that was taken for the private sector......

Unfortunately, you have not provided one single good example of the government taking control of something run by capitalism and free markets and lowering costs and providing a better service.

That is exactly what I asked for and unfortunately you cannot provide one good example in 200+ years of U.S history to support your belief.

Sorry......

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
12-26-2009, 12:04 AM
You gave me a link to a forum thread? LOL!!!!! that's some schooling alright! :rofl:

Our highway and U.S. Postal Service costs are VERY high and the quality is lower on average than the private sector because they have little or no competition. Very poor examples.

Also, I can't question the importance of our military but again, I don't think this is an example of something that was taken for the private sector......

Unfortunately, you have not provided one single good example of the government taking control of something run by capitalism and free markets and lowering costs and providing a better service.

That is exactly what I asked for and unfortunately you cannot provide one good example in 200+ years of U.S history to support your belief.

Sorry......

would you be willing to take medicare as an example? Most who are on it do not want to lose it.. this would be 4 examples. Sorry they might not fit your exact requirements, but that is Hannity tactics to get individuals like yourself to become his puppet

X-Terminator
12-26-2009, 12:15 AM
Our highway and U.S. Postal Service costs are VERY high and the quality is lower on average than the private sector because they have little or no competition. Very poor examples.

Also, I can't question the importance of our military but again, I don't think this is an example of something that was taken for the private sector......

The USPS has plenty of competition. UPS, DHL, FedEx, email, online banking/bill pay...all are more reliable than the USPS. Highways may be publicly funded, but private companies are still involved in the bidding process for contracts. Plus, it's labor costs that really drive up the price of road and any other construction project, more so than even the cost of materials. That isn't the government's fault.

X-Terminator
12-26-2009, 12:23 AM
would you be willing to take medicare as an example? Most who are on it do not want to lose it.. this would be 4 examples.

Medicare has plenty of flaws. There's the 2-year waiting period if you are under 65 that is a HUGE one. It doesn't cover everything, and what they do cover, it's only 80% - the other 20% is up to the individual. Costs have risen, which of course is why the Dems want to cut it. There is quite a bit of fraud and waste that costs taxpayers billions of dollars a year. So it ain't perfect. The prescription plan, however, has been run quite well - offers plenty of choices and has come in under budget since its inception.

smokin3000gt
12-26-2009, 12:41 AM
They need to take the politics out of if and do what is best for Americans. I personally believe that is offering all Americans affordable health insurance. Insured everyday, for any reason.

That is the problem with 'you guys'. You think that 'we' who oppose this health care bill oppose because we don't want Americans to have affordable health care. As if we want people to suffer and die.

What we are against is the way they are going about it. Make it affordable, not free.

What concerns me is I think this is just the beginning. After this bill hemorrhages money, the bean counters have to figure something out. They do the math and see how much $$$ goes out the window treating lung/throat cancer patients for free. That's enough to justify making cigarettes illegal. .

States lose a ton of tax revenue so they raise sales tax. That's all of us loosing yet another right AND paying for our 'free' healthcare AGAIN.

Treating gun shot victims cost tax payer money, so guns get taken away from good people.

This is a slippery slope.

HometownGal
12-26-2009, 07:48 AM
That is the problem with 'you guys'. You think that 'we' who oppose this health care bill oppose because we don't want Americans to have affordable health care. As if we want people to suffer and die.

What we are against is the way they are going about it. Make it affordable, not free.



AMEN. :thumbsup:

GBMelBlount
12-26-2009, 08:09 AM
The USPS has plenty of competition. UPS, DHL, FedEx, email, online banking/bill pay...all are more reliable than the USPS. Highways may be publicly funded, but private companies are still involved in the bidding process for contracts. Plus, it's labor costs that really drive up the price of road and any other construction project, more so than even the cost of materials. That isn't the government's fault.

Our highways suck. Look at Pennsylvania.....and we pay $.50 PER GALLON in taxes, largely for our roads. Government controls this process and we have terrible roads at astronomical prices.

GoSlash27
12-26-2009, 08:14 AM
Wading into this one late (and with some trepidation) :chuckle:

They need to take the politics out of if and do what is best for Americans. I personally believe that is offering all Americans affordable health insurance. Insured everyday, for any reason.

No offense, but I think this attitude (the government should provide for us) is a large part of the problem. You see, the government can't "provide" anything it doesn't first take away.
I would caution anybody that has become dependent on the Federal government's entitlement programs to review the projected Federal budgets for the next 10 years, take into account the recent developments regarding the treasury auctions, and ponder the following question:

How can the government "provide" anything when it's broke?

GBMelBlount
12-26-2009, 08:20 AM
would you be willing to take medicare as an example? Most who are on it do not want to lose it.. this would be 4 examples. Sorry they might not fit your exact requirements, but that is Hannity tactics to get individuals like yourself to become his puppet

Do you want to focus on how bad medicare is? It is a great example of government mismanagement, lies and deception. This only will ONLY strengthen the case for not letting the government NEAR healthcare. It's up to you, friend.

I probably haven't watched Hannity more than once or twice in 5 years. Nice try.

Please Bigwillie, stop flailing and focus on the issue here...that that government has never taken control of anything from the free and competitive markets of the private sector and created a better product at better prices.

Again, this runs contrary to your whole argument that somehow you feel the government will improve the quality and affordability of health care by taking it out of the hands of free and competitive markets. There is no basis in fact to support your argument.

If you want to continue to flail and attack me personally by saying that I am a puppet of someone who I don't even watch, as opposed to intelligently arguing facts, it will only continue to reflect poorly on you.

X-Terminator
12-26-2009, 09:33 AM
Our highways suck. Look at Pennsylvania.....and we pay $.50 PER GALLON in taxes, largely for our roads. Government controls this process and we have terrible roads at astronomical prices.

The government may control the process, but the private sector is still heavily involved. Unions are heavily involved as well, and they have a set price for their labor costs that has to be factored into the overall cost. If you want to blame someone, blame those two for why it costs so much to build or fix a road. And then when they DO build or fix them, sometimes they don't do it correctly and they have to go back and patch up their mistakes - which of course is why the roads suck around here. That still is not the government's fault. If the price tag for road construction was within reason, we wouldn't need the $.50 per gallon gas tax. I'm sure you'll disagree, and that's fine.

EDIT: I'll also add that every major road you drive on has been built by or is maintained by the government, whether it's federal, state, county or local.

Wading into this one late (and with some trepidation) :chuckle:



No offense, but I think this attitude (the government should provide for us) is a large part of the problem. You see, the government can't "provide" anything it doesn't first take away.
I would caution anybody that has become dependent on the Federal government's entitlement programs to review the projected Federal budgets for the next 10 years, take into account the recent developments regarding the treasury auctions, and ponder the following question:

How can the government "provide" anything when it's broke?

Well, you can take his comment to mean 2 different things. You can take it to mean that the government should provide the health insurance, which I have vehemently opposed and he supports. Or you can take it to mean that they should help provide the process by which the people can purchase affordable health insurance without their fingerprints all over it, which is what I prefer they do. Context, my friend.

X-Terminator
12-26-2009, 09:37 AM
Double post, sorry.

Vincent
12-26-2009, 09:47 AM
We ain't even close to the end of this battle yet.

Once the bills get combined into one,

it goes back to the house and senate. They THEN have to vote on that final bill..and THAT is going to be one ugly battle.

And then the lawsuits begin. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119783

Bottom line. Its unconstitutional.

Ok... give Obama at least 1 yr in office "before" we say he's not qualified....

What, pray tell, qualified bho to run for office, any office?

The idea is to weed out the unqualified BEFORE they reach office. Not wait until their lack of experience, credentials, etc drive the ship into the rocks. Public office isn't a training program.

X-Terminator
12-26-2009, 09:57 AM
Glad to see someone is standing up. The question is do they have enough combined money to challenge the government? You know Obama and Co. are going to spend everything at their disposal to defend their plan.

GoSlash27
12-26-2009, 10:21 AM
they should help provide the process by which the people can purchase affordable health insurance without their fingerprints all over it, which is what I prefer they do.
But doesn't it stand to reason that their fingerprints *will* be all over it? They are politicians, after all. And seriously: what do they know about the health care industry in the first place?
The Senate just broke their backs to pass this legislation (which the most conservative estimates say will cost us a trillion dollars over the next 10 years). The Speaker of the House wants to vote to pass the Senate version, and the President *will* sign it into law.
How many of them do you think actually read it?

My point is this: The government is set up, for better or for worse, to be the most inept and inefficient way to handle any problem simply because the people in charge have every incentive to be that way. It is also set up, for better or for worse, to seek more and more control, regardless of whether it is a help or a hindrance (or even wanted).

For too long, we have sought "help" from the Federal government in every single problem in our lives, with the mistaken notion that they provide for us instead of the other way around. "Help" they are all-too willing to provide. We have been unable to face the reality that nothing comes for free, and have refused to reconcile our desire for fiscal responsibility with the hard reality that "fiscal responsibility" means less government spending.

But reality is beginning to assert it's presence in our affairs; the era of big spending/ big pork/ big deficits is coming to a close whether the voters and the politicians want it to or not. Whether we are ready for it or not.
The Federal government will soon be insolvent. They won't be able to raise taxes enough to cover their budget without crashing the economy. They won't be able to deficit-spend because nobody wants to loan them the money. They won't be able to print money without triggering runaway inflation. They are *out of options*.

We are at the end of the road. It's past time to start making some hard decisions.

/ranty. Apologies. :hatsoff:

GBMelBlount
12-26-2009, 10:59 AM
That still is not the government's fault.


I beg to differ. I believe it is governments fault due to poor management.

I view the government as a business owner and the contractors as employees.

If something isn't working, it is the responsibility of the business owner (government in this case) to fix the problem, either change the system, create more efficiencies, a better product, or get new employees. this is done every day in the private sector XT, or the companies go out of business due to superior competition.

If I am not mistaken, in some countries they have performance clauses. For instance, if the roads do not last for 10 years, the companies who put in the road must replace it at their expense. Needless to say....the roads last 10 years.

The government does not have any incentive to improve quality or efficiency because they use our money and they can raise taxes to cover their laziness.

So again, I completely blame the government for poor management and oversight. Gotta disagree here.

MACH1
12-26-2009, 01:47 PM
Tell me where in the Constitution where it's legal to take away freedom of choice? Tell me where in the Constitution that it's legal to mandate the public to purchase anything at all from a private source, or government source for that matter? And if you don't you get fined and/or tossed in jail.

And then the lawsuits begin. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119783

Bottom line. Its unconstitutional.



What, pray tell, qualified bho to run for office, any office?

The idea is to weed out the unqualified BEFORE they reach office. Not wait until their lack of experience, credentials, etc drive the ship into the rocks. Public office isn't a training program.

This is what I asked several pages ago. Yet the KOOL_AID drinkers can't answer.

X-Terminator
12-26-2009, 02:32 PM
I beg to differ. I believe it is governments fault due to poor management.

I view the government as a business owner and the contractors as employees.

If something isn't working, it is the responsibility of the business owner (government in this case) to fix the problem, either change the system, create more efficiencies, a better product, or get new employees. this is done every day in the private sector XT, or the companies go out of business due to superior competition.

If I am not mistaken, in some countries they have performance clauses. For instance, if the roads do not last for 10 years, the companies who put in the road must replace it at their expense. Needless to say....the roads last 10 years.

The government does not have any incentive to improve quality or efficiency because they use our money and they can raise taxes to cover their laziness.

So again, I completely blame the government for poor management and oversight. Gotta disagree here.

That's fine. I've said my piece - I'd be just repeating myself at this point. Although, I do like the performance clause like you stated above, but you and I both know that neither the contractors nor the unions would ever go for that. I mean, look at the fight the Pittsburgh Public Schools are going to have because they want to institute merit-based pay for teachers. Who's behind that? The teacher's union. I doubt the teachers themselves would have a problem with it.

GBMelBlount
12-26-2009, 03:06 PM
That's fine. I've said my piece - I'd be just repeating myself at this point. Although, I do like the performance clause like you stated above, but you and I both know that neither the contractors nor the unions would ever go for that. I mean, look at the fight the Pittsburgh Public Schools are going to have because they want to institute merit-based pay for teachers. Who's behind that? The teacher's union. I doubt the teachers themselves would have a problem with it.

Agreed. :drink:

It all comes down either believing in the freedom, liberty & competitive markets that made our country the greatest in the history of the world or the government monopolies, socialism and communism which have ruined most countries and destroyed the individuals desire to innovate and achieve great things.....

Vincent
12-28-2009, 08:21 AM
I've used the phrase "intoxicated by their own power" in reference to these donkeys. Imagine seeing this sot ramble on about "what happened" behind the scenes...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/M5Y9X5ggxzA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/M5Y9X5ggxzA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

revefsreleets
12-31-2009, 01:35 PM
I can't believe I'm posting this (Bob Herbert and I do NOT see eye-to-eye on 98% of policy), but if it's true, this is going to SEVERELY impact probably the majority of the posters on this board. To sum up, either pay a tax on your benefits, or reduce your benefits down to crap to avoid the tax, but get killed on the back-end paying co-pays and out of pocket expenses. And do Senators REALLY believe if employees reduce benefits their employers will give them raises to compensate for the difference?

This POS legislature gets worse and worse the more I learn about it...at this point, I'm starting to truly believe that the status quo (i.e. doing nothing at all) is a far better decision...

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/80399607.html

Truth about taxes in the Senate health bill

By Bob Herbert
New York Times

Published on Thursday, Dec 31, 2009

NEW YORK: There is a middle-class tax time bomb ticking in the Senate's version of President Obama's effort to reform health care.

The bill that passed the Senate with such fanfare on Christmas Eve would impose a confiscatory 40 percent excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans, which are popularly viewed as over-the-top plans held only by the very wealthy. In fact, it's a tax that in a few years will hammer millions of middle-class policyholders, forcing them to scale back their access to medical care.

Which is exactly what the tax is designed to do.

The tax would kick in on plans exceeding $23,000 annually for family coverage and $8,500 for individuals, starting in 2013. In the first year it would affect relatively few people in the middle class. But because of the steadily rising costs of health care in the U.S., more and more plans would reach the taxation threshold each year.

Within three years of its implementation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax would apply to nearly 20 percent of all workers with employer-provided health coverage in the country, affecting some 31 million people. Within six years, according to Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax would reach a fifth of all households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 annually. Those families can hardly be considered very wealthy.

Proponents say the tax will raise nearly $150 billion over 10 years, but there's a catch. It's not expected to raise this money directly. The dirty little secret behind this onerous tax is that no one expects very many people to pay it. The idea is that rather than fork over 40 percent in taxes on the amount by which policies exceed the threshold, employers (and individuals who purchase health insurance on their own) will have little choice but to ratchet down the quality of their health plans.

These lower-value plans would have higher out-of-pocket costs, thus increasing the very things that are so maddening to so many policyholders right now: higher and higher co-payments, soaring deductibles and so forth. Some of the benefits of higher-end policies can be expected in many cases to go by the boards: dental and vision care, for example, and expensive mental health coverage.

Proponents say this is a terrific way to hold down health-care costs. If policyholders have to pay more out of their own pockets, they will be more careful — that is to say, more reluctant — to access health services. On the other hand, people with very serious illnesses will be saddled with much higher out-of-pocket costs. And a reluctance to seek treatment for something that might seem relatively minor at first could well have terrible (and terribly expensive) consequences in the long run.

If even the plan's proponents do not expect policyholders to pay the tax, how will it raise $150 billion in a decade? Great question.

We all remember learning in school about the suspension of disbelief. This part of the Senate's health benefits taxation scheme requires a monumental suspension of disbelief. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, less than 18 percent of the revenue will come from the tax itself. The rest of the $150 billion, more than 82 percent of it, will come from the income taxes paid by workers who have been given pay raises by employers who will have voluntarily handed over the money they saved by offering their employees less valuable health insurance plans.

Can you believe it?

I asked Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, about this. (Labor unions are outraged at the very thought of a health benefits tax.) I had to wait for him to stop laughing to get his answer. ''If you believe that,'' he said, ''I have some oceanfront property in southwestern Pennsylvania that I will sell you at a great price.''

A survey of business executives by Mercer, a human resources consulting firm, found that only 16 percent of respondents said they would convert the savings from a reduction in health benefits into higher wages for employees. Yet proponents of the tax are holding steadfast to the belief that nearly all would do so.

''In the real world, companies cut costs and they pocket the money,'' said Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America and a leader of the opposition to the tax. ''Executives tell the shareholders: 'Hey, higher profits without any revenue growth. Great!' ''

The tax on health benefits is being sold to the public dishonestly as something that will affect only the rich, and it makes a mockery of President Barack Obama's repeated pledge that if you like the health coverage you have now, you can keep it.

Those who believe this is a good idea should at least have the courage to be straight about it with the American people.
Herbert is a New York Times columnist.

Fire Haley
12-31-2009, 02:15 PM
The libs are souring on Obama - they are starting to see he's just another snooty, snake-oil selling politician

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/BorsM/2009/BorsM20091230_low.jpg

BrandonCarr39
12-31-2009, 07:47 PM
The libs are souring on Obama - they are starting to see he's just another snooty, snake-oil selling politician

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/BorsM/2009/BorsM20091230_low.jpg

To boot - Obama works for the elite bankers.

Godfather
12-31-2009, 08:17 PM
To boot - Obama works for the elite bankers.

Yep. Last fall CBS reported that Wall Street executives gave the O three times as much campaign money as they gave McCain.

Godfather
12-31-2009, 08:26 PM
I can't believe I'm posting this (Bob Herbert and I do NOT see eye-to-eye on 98% of policy), but if it's true, this is going to SEVERELY impact probably the majority of the posters on this board. To sum up, either pay a tax on your benefits, or reduce your benefits down to crap to avoid the tax, but get killed on the back-end paying co-pays and out of pocket expenses. And do Senators REALLY believe if employees reduce benefits their employers will give them raises to compensate for the difference?

This POS legislature gets worse and worse the more I learn about it...at this point, I'm starting to truly believe that the status quo (i.e. doing nothing at all) is a far better decision...

Even worse, companies with more than 200 employees will have to enroll their employees in an insurance plan and can't allow employees to opt out. So if your plan sucks--either in terms of cost/benefit or the claims process, tough. You have to live with it.

Vincent
01-01-2010, 12:46 PM
:poop:Reid:poop: turns the Republic into a banana republic. Thankfully this obamacare bull@#$% is unconstitutional and can be undone on that basis. Cuz otherwise these commie rat bastards have baked us. :mad:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/twsfp/2009/12/reid_bill_declares_future_cong_1.asp
:poop:Reid:poop: Bill Says Future Congresses Cannot Repeal Parts of Reid Bill

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the :poop:Reid:poop: bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:

there's one provision that i found particularly troubling and it's under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection."

and i quote -- "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

this is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

i'm not even sure that it's constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don't see why the majority party wouldn't put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.

i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.

Watch DeMint's full remarks here:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EnmvVo_itT0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EnmvVo_itT0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

According to page 1001 of the :poop:Reid:poop: bill, the purpose of the Independent Medical Advisory Board is to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending." For any fearmongers out there tempted to call an unelected body that recommends Medicare cuts a "Death Panel," let me be clear. According to page 1004, IMAB proposals "shall not include any recommendation to ration health care"--you know, just like the bill says there's no funding for abortion.

Paging Sarah Palin: the death panel is unkillable.

Update: A friend suggests that Congress could kill IMAB by refusing to fund it. So much for zombie death panels, I guess, for now. Also, the Senate could change the rules to rule repealing or amending IMAB in order. But that would take a 2/3 majority.:jawdrop: The Democrats aren't playing by the rules; they may be violating the Constitution.:jawdrop:

Really?! When have the @#$%ing donkeys ever played by the rules? :rofl::toofunny::sofunny:

Godfather
01-01-2010, 04:33 PM
Amazing how someone as clueless as Reid can be majority leader.

All they need to get rid of it is for the R's to be in charge and propose a new law/amendment. If a D objects, the Vice-President can simply rule that the motion can be considered.

revefsreleets
01-03-2010, 11:23 AM
If this is true, it may actually be a GOOD thing....it means the GOP will just have to scrap the ENTIRE healthcare bill and start over....

GBMelBlount
01-04-2010, 08:06 PM
If this is true, it may actually be a GOOD thing....it means the GOP will just have to scrap the ENTIRE healthcare bill and start over....

I like Harry Reid.....Healthcare will be free! Yippee!

But then again I've always had an affinity for self-serving, egotistical and back-handed douchebags...... :chuckle:

TroysBadDawg
01-04-2010, 08:30 PM
I like Harry Reid.....Healthcare will be free! Yippee!

But then again I've always had an affinity for self-serving, egotistical and back-handed douchebags...... :chuckle:

Tom I believe your insulting self-serving, egotistical and back-handed douchebags by comparing them to Harry Reid. But that is just my opinion.

TroysBadDawg
01-04-2010, 08:43 PM
The government may control the process,

But the Government gives contracts to the lowest bidder. (less quality of work, materials, etc) Then the states are required to maintain the projects. In Ohio, near where I live a construction conpany redid the highway (I-75) did it a year under contract, they then moved to the I-70 / I-75 interchange again under contact time, they are almost complete on the ST. Rt. 4 / I-75 (commonly refered to as Malfunction Junction) again under time. What did they get in return no more bidding on contracts for a period of 5 years for bringing them in under time and money.

The local construction company has workers retire from the company and never worked more than 1 hour from his home on I-75 or I-70. (my neighbor) What is wrong with that?